This writ petition challenged forest department orders evicting the petitioner. The Court refused to decide on merits but directed a joint survey to clarify the land's status.
Joint survey to be conducted by Assistant Director of Land Records to distinguish between forest and revenue land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 12084/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12084/2021 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
OMKARAPPA S/O DODDA BANGARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT THALAGUPPA VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.K RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 12084/2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) IN APPEAL NO.76/2019-20 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ORDER DATED 03.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS ILLEGAL ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting Appeal No.76 of 2019-20 as also the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Authorised Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short).
The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and in possession and occupation of certain lands measuring 2
WP No. 12084/2021
acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.20 bounded on the eastern side by land in Sy.Nos.138 and 139, western side by Sy.No.20 of Thalaguppa, Northern side by land of Hiranyappa and Veerabhadrappa and southern side by land of Sridhar. It is averred in the petition that the land in question is in possession of the family of the petitioner for long years which the petitioner claims to be 75 years. It is further claimed that the land was not in a cultivable condition as it was full of rocks and shrubs and the petitioner improved the land, made it cultivable after spending huge sums of money earned from his agricultural occupation. When things stood thus, proceedings come to be initiated by the 2nd respondent seeking to evict the petitioner from the land on the ground that it was a forest land on which the petitioner was in unauthorized and illegal occupation. The proceedings were initiated under Section 64A of the Act before the Authorised Officer. The petitioner appears and gives his statement as to the trail of how he comes in possession of the land by producing certain documents which according to the petitioner were in his favour. The Authorised Officer on considering the plea of the petitioner
WP No. 12084/2021
holds that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the land which belonged to the Forest and, therefore, directs eviction of the petitioner from the land. Against the said order of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner prefers an appeal before the 1st respondent /Appellate Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 64A of the Act. The said appeal comes to be rejected by affirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Authorised Officer. The order of the Authorised Officer and the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Authorised Officer are called in question in the subject petition.
WP No. 12084/2021
unauthorised occupation of forest land. It is his contention that the Government cannot institute two proceedings one through the Authorised Officer and the other before the Land Grabbing Court. It is his emphatic submission that if a survey is conducted even today, it would become demonstrable that the land in which the petitioner is in occupation is not a forest land.
WP No. 12084/2021
the State one by the Authorised Officer and the other before the Court under the Land Grabbing Act is concerned, he would submit by way of an undertaking that the Government would withdraw the proceedings instituted or transferred to the Court under the Land Grabbing Act in the teeth of the admission of the petitioner that he is in unauthorized occupation of forest land. This submission is placed on record.
briefly are the ones that are necessary to be considered at this juncture. The contention of the petitioner is that his family comes in possession of the land in question and is in occupation of it for more than 75 years. His ancestors and him now are in occupation of the land. When the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the Authorised Officer and tendered his statement. According to the statement, the
WP No. 12084/2021
petitioner seeks to explain that he is in occupation of both the forest land and revenue land. The statement of the petitioner reads as follows:
“¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÉÆgÀ§ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ ¸ÉÆgÀ§gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.07.2019gÀ ¨É½UÉÎ 11.30 UÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ²æà NAPÁgÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ zÉÆqÀØ §AUÁgÀ¥Àà vÁ¼ÀUÀÄ¥Àà ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ D£ÀªÀnÖ ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR¯ÁzÀ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ CgÀtå ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå:22/2011-12. ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.07.2011 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉýPÉ K£ÉAzÀgÉ,
£Á£ÀÄ G¼ÀĪÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj d«ÄãÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ §gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ²æà zÉÆqÀØ §AUÁgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 75 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ G¼ÀĪÉÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß CdÓ£ÀÄ wÃjºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ G¼ÀĪÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj MvÀÄÛªÀjªÀiÁr G¼ÀĪÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ eÁUÀªÀÅ CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®èzÀÝ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀUÀAqÀÄ 1999-2000 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ ¸ÉÆgÀ§gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀĪÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹ »A§gÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ £ÁªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ w½zÀ ªÀÄnÖUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀzÀj MvÀÄÛªÀj ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ G¼ÀĪÉÄÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝã É . CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯É MzÀV¹zÉ. ºÁUÀÆ CPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÉÆÃnøïUÀ½UÉ PÁ® PÁ®PÉÌ GvÀÛj¸ÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÉÝãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ §ÄqÀPÀlÄÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¥ÁgÀA¥ÀjPÀ CgÀtå ªÁ¹UÀ¼À (CgÀtå ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2008gÀrAiÀÄ°è CgÀtå ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸À«ÄÃw vÁ¼ÀUÀÄ¥Àà E°è ¨sÀƸÀPÀæªÀÄPÁÌV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄÄ «¯ÉêÁjAiÀiÁV «¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄlÖzÀ CgÀtå ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸À«ÄÃwAiÀÄ°è Cfð wgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ wgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀUÉÆArzÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ
WP No. 12084/2021
CgÀtå ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸À«ÄÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¹zÉ. F PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ zÁR¯É MzÀV¹gÀÄvÉÛã É . ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ 1978gÀ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°è ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÆgÀ§ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ ¸ÉÆgÀ§ EªÀjUÉ ªÉÄð£À ºÉýPÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.”
The statement extracted hereinabove would not drive home
the fact that the petitioner was not in occupation of forest land or drive home the point of the Authorised Officer that he was in illegal or unauthorized occupation of the forest land. Nonetheless the determination by the Authorised Officer is that the petitioner is in occupation of forest land.
The petitioner then files an appeal before the Appellate Authority who confirms the order passed by the Authorised Officer. The records would reveal that the petitioner sought to hold on to the land by initiating proceedings under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 which also comes to be dismissed and files a suit seeking adverse possession against Government on the ground that he has been in possession of a Government land which is within the knowledge of Government to claim adverse possession.
WP No. 12084/2021
This also comes to be dismissed. After all these proceedings, the petitioner is now before this Court challenging the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioner has not encroached upon any forest land and the land which is in his possession is a revenue land and the proceedings instituted under the Act was erroneous. In the light of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that if a joint survey even today conducted would reveal that the petitioner is not in occupation of any forest land and this plea is accepted insofar as conduct of joint survey is concerned by the learned Additional Government Advocate. In this view of the matter this Court would not enter upon merits of the claim of the petitioner at this juncture and it would suffice if a direction is issued for a joint survey to be conducted for clear identification of forest land and revenue land which the petitioner claims to be in his possession.
WP No. 12084/2021
repeated proceedings of this kind cannot be initiated by the petitioner who is in unauthorized occupation of forest land and he should vacate that portion of the land which would
be determined on the basis of joint survey and examination of records. The learned senior counsel would refute the submission to contend that result of the survey should not be that the petitioner is left with no remedy. He would seek liberty to seek rehabilitation of the petitioner on the score that he is a Scheduled Tribe who is in occupation of forest land. Both these submissions are only placed on record. I deem it appropriate not to express any opinion on the claim of the petitioner seeking rehabilitation under the relevant provisions of law or the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner should vacate the determined forest land immediately after the conduct of joint survey, as I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. Legal remedies if any available in law to the petitioner can be availed of in accordance with law.
WP No. 12084/2021
O R D E R
Sd/JUDGE
KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the eviction order and appeal rejection should be decided on merits or关注和调查。
Whether a joint survey should be conducted to distinguish between forest land and revenue land occupied by the petitioner.
What direction the Court should issue to resolve the dispute regarding the land occupied by the petitioner.
Omkarappa S/o Doddabangarappa
Chief Conservator of Forests and Appellate Authority Shivamogga Circle
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
